We also noted the language in which the paper was written and the

We also noted the language in which the paper was written and the setting the studies were conducted. These criteria were not used for weighting covariates in the meta-analysis; instead, these were considered a priori explanations for study heterogeneity. Statistical analysis We applied the Relative Risk and 95% Confidence Intervals as our primary effect measure LY3039478 concentration in this analysis. For analysis examining

response and survival, favourable results for the TCM intervention are in the direction greater than 1. In circumstances of zero outcome events in either arm of a trial, we used the Haldane method and added 1 to each arm, as suggested by Sheehe[6]. We first pooled studies on all interventions versus all controls using the DerSimonian-Laird random effects method[7]. This method recognizes and anchors studies as a Vadimezan sample of all potential studies, and incorporates an additional between-study component to the TSA HDAC purchase estimate of variability. We calculated the I2 statistic for each analysis as a measure of the proportion of the overall variation

that is attributable to between-study heterogeneity[8]. Forest plots are displayed for the primary analysis, showing individual study effect measures with 95% CIs and the overall DerSimmonian-Laird pooled estimate. We conducted a meta-regression analysis using the unrestricted maximum likelihood method to determine if the a priori covariates

of TCM formulation yielded differing effects. We examined publication bias visually and through the Begg-Mazumdar, Egger, and Horbold-Egger GABA Receptor tests. We calculated the optimal information size (OIS) required to determine adequate power across trials. We used Stats Direct and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (Version 2) for all statistical procedures. All p-values are 2-sided and a p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. PW and EM conducted the analysis. Results Our extensive searching yielded 130 titles and/or abstracts, of which 54 were found likely to be relevant. Nine of the full text articles reviewed were excluded for one of two reasons: 1) either the study was not randomized; 2) TCM was the control intervention 3)study was duplicated. In total, 45 publications [9–53] containing independent data fit the criteria for inclusion. Figure 1 details the literature retrieval process used during our searches and the rationales for exclusion leading to the final selection. Among the final 45 studies, 44 [9–14, 16–53]were published in Chinese languages and 1 [15]was published in English. All the studies were conducted in China. Figure 1 Flow diagram of included studies. Characteristics of included studies The 45 RCTs included 3,236 patients, 1,682 in the treatment groups and 1,554 in the control groups (See Additional file 1 and 2).

This entry was posted in Antibody. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>